knowledge_health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does add value by listing specific aspects it checks (missing paths, stale enriched docs, Ascend corpus, index build time), giving insight into its scope. However, it does not mention return format, side effects, or whether it performs any mutations, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Check knowledge config health') followed by a concise list of specific checks. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simple nature (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool checks and its health-related domain. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating that it returns a health report, but the output schema mitigates that need. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed, and the schema already fully covers parameter semantics with an empty object. The description meaningfully explains what the tool does, which is more relevant than parameter details in this case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Check' followed by the resource 'knowledge config health', and enumerates distinct checks (missing paths, stale enriched docs, Ascend corpus, index build time). This distinguishes it from sibling health tools like repository_health or collective_status, which focus on other domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Check knowledge config health' clearly indicates the tool's context of use: when an agent needs to assess the state of knowledge configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the checks (e.g., Ascend corpus, index build time) implies this is the appropriate tool for knowledge-related health investigations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.